edit: Yes it seems he has hired law clerks, great news. Better news would be if people had not whined, bitched and moaned about Hillary for two solid years even the Russians couldnt have stolen the election and we wouldnt have to worry about it in the first place.

14. I regularly have that discussion with my 20 year old daughter

She is single, no school debt, and an RN. Her pension at work is matching 401(k) so after three years (2 1/2 left) she will be fully vested in it and her signing bonus will be up. She is living at home saving money and using our car to get to work and back. After three years experience I think she would have a lot of options for English speaking countries. She would only flush her three years of Social Security contributions.

I bet a lot of young adults my daughter's age are having that discussion right now.

25. Yep, it's very smart to consider all of the options in other countries. It's hard to tell where the

US is headed, but it does not seem good at this time. I had an opportunity in my youth to leave, way back, but I stayed, and it worked out well. ... but often, now, I think about where I might be now, away from this mess and in Canada.

77. Other countries have their resurgent right wings also.

That includes Canada, with its population clustered along the American border. Serious problems in the U.S. would inevitably lead to serious problems there, and with them the inevitable rise in negative conservative reactions. But if you do run, I recommend choosing a nation with a cooler climate like Canada. Hot climate encourages conservatism. No accident that most established democracies and healthy blue states are in temperate regions.

98. Living in Florida you have a point. But is it better educational systems?

102. :) No. Chicken and egg. Better educational systems

are a factor of course, but they are more reliably found in more liberal cultures.

I promise I didn't make this up. Various scientific disciplines have documented it. But look at a political map of the U.S., and another of the planet. Climates of all kinds that threaten rather than facilitate life tend to foster protective conservatism, like Canada's not far north of the southern border.

You can imagine how people living in disease ridden tropics might react to strangers appearing on the opposite river bank over the 20,000 years that predated antibiotics. Lack of conservative protections, including a very useful hostility, might result in an entire village or region being wiped out.

108. Take a look at the southern and southwestern states.

Not coincidentally, either, they tended to be settled more, or at least first on the coasts, by people bringing culture from southern European regions, which developed from Rome's, which believed that a person's rights were conferred by social status, not inborn. (Presumably that's why Maximus in Gladiator accepted going from confidant of an emperor to slave, instead of saying nuts to this and cutting out like any self respecting American would.)

Conversely, Germanic cultures from cooler, more northern regions tended to believe in inborn individual rights, at least of men, one of the earliest antecedents to the Enlightenment.

Very simplistic, but that's about as far as my education extends. Scientists have linked these big cultural patterns in a variety of ways to climate, though.

132. Spanish is one of the easiest languages for an English speaker to learn...

3. What this could mean makes me feel sick.

I'm going to put abortion out there, though -- it's the #1 wedge issue that keeps many conservatives who are bitterly disillusioned with their party still voting Republican at the polls. The last thing those controlling the Republicans should want is to take that ring out of the noses of nearly 100 million conservative voters.

20. I agree with this

It would be a major win for them but could finish unraveling their coalition.

I am sure there are plenty of GOP operative types who would not want to win this particular battle. After all, many of the other culture wars have lost steam.

However, what we have seen in the last decade is a transition from GOP politicians who cynically abuse the religious right to GOP politicians who are true believers. I fear that there are plenty enough of the true believers in Congress who won't even think about the strategic ramifications.

65. I think that last might just be. There are true believers

in the ultrawealthy classes, horrible thought. But by and large the dominant venal secularists are having trouble controlling the very people they slotted in because they were more easily lead.
Those latter have already been going too far, and we know they will go very, very far if they can.

Btw, reminds of one troubling offshoot of empowered women that I read about: Unwillingly umarried men. Increasing numbers of men who can't get a girlfriend or a wife because women who once would have looked at them are making other choices. Don't know what the actual numbers are, but sites like Breitbart that feed various resentments and feelings portray empowerment as a zero sum game -- gains for women mean losses for men. And it only makes sense that widespread inability to have a sex life and a family could itself lead to intense political backlash against women's rights.

35. Abortion is a health issue.

If you put abortion out there, every time a woman has a miscarriage, questions will be asked.

I had two live babies who became wonderful adults. But I tended to have miscarriages as did my great-grandmother.

If you put abortion on the table, the conservatives will be able to hound every woman who has miscarriages to prove she did not have an abortion.

And by the way, when I actually had my second child (in another country in which abortion is not just legal but an acceptable process), the doctor told me that if I got pregnant again, I would not be able to complete the pregnancy. That's how bad my situation was.

It would not be fair to place a woman who is trying to have a baby in the position of a suspect of a crime.

Anti-abortion haters are just that: haters.

Abortion should never be "put on the table." It's just ignorance that makes people anti-abortion.

72. I put it "out there" for discussion. You are presenting

pretty much a standard ideological view, but it seems too limited and dogmatic to allow discussion. Sure, it's a medical matter. It's also far more. And let's NOT get into it now, but we should never forget that at some interminably argued point it becomes a medical matter for two people.

Gorsuch's elevation to SCOTUS was of course a major victory for the religious right, a payoff to them for supporting the shift of power to the wealthy, but even those who fed those "red in tooth and nail" understood that that victory would only make them hungry for much more.

We can spike their guns big time in November, though, if we take control of the Senate, even if the worst happens, Kennedy retires and they rush through a confirmation before then. And no power tops that of the electorate for long; what religious extremists want would cause an enormous backlash against them.

And let's never forget, though SCOTUS would become very unrepresentative before it happened, that if necessary congress could increase the number of justices to redress the balance. That's a card we always hold in our pockets without need for constitutional amendment.

146. They're already attacking birth control.

An awful lot of RWers believe that BC methods like IUD's and the Pill work by inducing an abortion. That's why Hobby Lobby went to court over coverage of certain forms of BC. Where are they getting this idea? There also appears to be a deliberate attempt to cause ignorant people to confuse RU-486 with postcoital contraception - I've heard people refer to Plan B as Abortion Pills.

124. I have never missed a national election in the last 50 years. I do not

foresee a United States of America ever being a welcoming democracy again. I see it as a white dominated theocracy where women and all minorities are second class citizens. Voting in November will have little impact on unstacking the SCOTUS.

142. As opposed to the ugly sentiments that it's all hopeless?

We have come a long way as a country and we continue to make progress. Sure it isn't a linear progression but compare where we were in 1800 to now. Women can vote, minorities can vote, same sex marriage is legal, slavery isn't, non-property owners can vote, etc.

145. I can express as many sentiments that the USA as a democracy is

is being f**king destroyed as I want. All those things, especially same sex marriage can be, and just might be, overturned by stacked SCOTUS. All they would have to do is condone GOP gerrymandering, voter suppression, and 'religious freedom ' laws.

59. When Barack Obama was the candidate, Democrats came out and voted for him.

All kinds of Democrats. Those who supported him in the primaries and caucuses and many of those who did not.

The Democratic Party was united, and people voted. I know. I was at the polls, watching them as they marched in to vote. The Party was united because Barack Obama united it. And that is why he won.

I had gotten up very, very early that morning to go to the polls. Then I had to drive back to where I was staying. I was exhausted and went straight to bed thinking we would not know the results until the next morning.

To my surprise, my children called me to tell me that Obama had won. It was only about 10 p.m., maybe a little later or earlier. What a wonderful surprise. It was great.

There were lessons to be learned from that amazing election victory.

When Democrats nominate candidates people want to vote for, when Democrats charge the nominee with the task of uniting the Party and not just expecting people to vote for the candidate because, after all, he or she is the candidate, then the candidate wins. And he or she wins for ALL DEMOCRATS, not just those who supported him or her during the primary.

In 2016, the division in the Democratic Party was open, sore and close to bleeding during the Democratic convention. People here blame it on Bernie, but the Party was divided before Bernie decided to run. The candidate people wanted to have run against Hillary was maybe Elizabeth Warren, maybe Kucinich, maybe this one or that one, but the Party was already divided. The division was not caused by Bernie. It was not created by Bernie. It was there before Bernie decided to run. Many have forgotten that fact. Look back at the posts on DU before Bernie announced his candidacy. It's there to see.

Hillary then won the primaries and the convention. But her effort to unite the Party and make sure all Democrats especially in swing states voted for her was far too weak. I think she thought that Democrats would of course unite behind her. That did not happen.

And that failure to unite the Party behind the candidate is ALWAYS the fault of the Party leadership, ALWAYS.

Sorry. But it always is, and it was in 2016.

Leadership means uniting those being led. Uniting others is the task, the responsibility, the test of a leader.

My dad was a minister. If people didn't show up for church on Sunday morning, he did not blame THEM. He knew who was responsible. He was. People did not show up for church was because he was not supporting THEM, the people in his congregation, in the way he should. So, Monday, he would start making "calls."

What is a "call"? It's when you visit someone in their home or if they own a business, in their business, and you ask how they are doing, what is on their mind, how you can help THEM, what you can do to show solidarity with them, to support them in their life. If you are a Christian, you pray with them. That is what a "call" is. Hillary was raised a Methodist. My father was a Methodist. I assume she knows what a "call" is.

Unfortunately, Hillary did not make the "calls" she needed to make to disenchanted voters. I know it hard for people here to recognize that. But that was her mistake. She did not try to find out why people supported Bernie instead of her. She did not ask them about their problems. She could have done it. It would have been easy in this day of the internet to do it. But she could not get past bitterness, her own and that of the Bernie supporters. She should have started well before the primaries.

So don't blame Bernie. He lost, and he tried to unite the Party. He was out there trying to get people to vote for Hillary, much to the disgust of some of his supporters. Check on what Bernie was doing between the primary and the election. Google it. He was holding rallies for Hillary as well as doing his day job.

Sorry. But back to the topic of this post -- the winner of a primary is responsible for making sure that he/she unites the voters who voted for other candidates behind the winning candidate's candidacy. We need to make that very clear in the Democratic Party for candidates at all levels. The winner unites the supporters of other candidates behind him- or herself. That's how you win an election.

Truman did it. JFK did it. Clinton did it. Obama did it. That is what makes the difference between winning and losing.

Uniting the voters can be difficult. It may not seem fair that the responsibility for doing it falls upon the winner of the primary or convention, but there really is no alternative.

After WWII, the winner, that is the allies led by the US and Great Britain, had the responsibility to unite the countries that lost that war as well as the countries that had been invaded, Italy, Germany, Spain and Austria, France, the Netherlands, etc. behind the winners that had not been invaded.

We succeeded in that task, but it took a lot of generosity and good will to do it.

Generosity and good will -- the secret traits that allow winners to unite the losers behind the winner.

Apparently there was not enough generosity and good will toward the many, many Democrats who did not vote for Hillary in 2016.

There is still too much anger and hatred, too much focus on having lost. We do need to win this year. The future of our democracy depends on our winning in November.

Time to put the anger behind us and unite the Party around good candidates, candidates we can trust.

Anger at other Democrats or liberals if you will is divisive. It blames. It divides. It loses elections.

We need to change our view on why we lost in 2016 and unite.

Blaming does not unite our Party.

Let's remember why we are Democrats, what we stand for and be proud and united. Forget the blaming about the past. It's over and done with. We can't change it.

Make that "call." Reach out and care about someone who did not vote for your candidate in 2016.

Many here do not agree with Christianity. I respect that. I understand that. But the way that the Christian churches constructed and maintain themselves is uniting behind the common value of caring. Unity is strength.

As long as many Democrats are blackballed and not viewed as Democrats but as troublemakers, the Democratic Party will not be able to unite. So we have to change and unite ourselves with others who may have slightly different opinions than we have. So be it. Amen.

85. Righteous rant!

Should be an OP.

And those divides are still here. I'm amazed how the primaries are still being fought in here, rules be damned. Although less frequently. But there is still this underlying disturbance waiting to be sparked. There is a new direction wanting to be born in the party with bold progressive policies, and the old guard still clinging on top of their hill wanting to control the message and afraid of upsetting the apple cart. And we see this tale of two cities being played out on DU in a microcosm.

I've always been shocked at the vitriol spewed here at not only Bernie for not sewing a D on his lapel, but against Nader, Stein, Sarandon, etc.. as well. I guess it makes a difference where you live, but as someone from outside your country I look at progressive and liberal pushback against the ever increasing right wing world as an international struggle, with giant corps consolidating and merging to become even bigger, including media outlets, I look at these characters as allies in the greater worldwide struggle, where the other side usually wins.

My point that I wanted to make, was we have been told to try and communicate and find common ground with deplorables. That they are not bad people, not stupid people, we just have to listen to them, be empathetic to .....what? ....
When it is much easier to communicate and find common ground with the other side of the spectrum, on the left. If the more reserved, moderate, Democrat would listen not to deplorabes, but to those that agree with them on most every issue, if only that they are more extreme in those goal demands, then we'd have more than enough to assure a victories for the foreseeable future. When Bernie supporters, and even Green supporters, feel unwelcome and insulted daily, they will only hunker down and get more isolated and extreme and spend their days on JPR.

Yet , all it takes for a lot of them, not all of course, but enough of them to help win the battle next time, is to be at the very least, appreciated for their comradere on issues like woman's rights, LGBT rights, the environment, minority justice, civil rights, a strong safety net, universal medicare, and a lot of other issues I'm sure. That it is confusing to any young person, new to politics, but full of passion to help change the world, when they see Democrats fighting and bad mouthing other individuals that share their own general platform! Instead of sowing this kind of divisiveness, just usurp their platforms, open the tent up in the back instead of putting all the energy in the front trying to plead with Trump humpers to come inside.

110. It will in all likelyhood be too late next time which is the entire point...these folks can fuck off

they deserted us during an important election...and if Trump gets another court pick, the progressive party is over. You don't get a second chance . Somethings can't be undone. I hope their pouty butt hurt was worth it to them...really and I hope they pay for the rest of their sorry lives for what they did.

107. I hope those who refused to be 'united' and vote for the only one who could stop Trump...take the

brunt of the misery they caused...they absolutely deserve it... I send a giant "fuck you" traitors... their way. It is their fault that we will lose progressive policy achieved in difficult fights with people way smarter and more courageous than these asses people who fought the good fight and some who died to get unions and the 40 hour week,...to get Medicare and all the rest...so these whiny and truly stupid faux progressives could lose it all; they were not 'inspired'-well boo fucking hoo....anyone who preferred Trump over Hillary is not progressive at all...and deserve to shut their God damned mouths for the rest of their useless, sorry lives...Green trash and spoiled riffraff...not Democrats and not progressive. I know progressives and am one...they are nothing of the sort...Republican enablers is what they are. (No not you Sophia as you are here I assume you voted Hillary).

12. Thanks for that!

I feel a little less frightened.

Surely Kennedy has some interest in the country's future - he should know he's part of a thin wall between survival and catastrophe. Unless he has health problems, the thought of retirement should terrify him.

22. He always was more conservative than liberal

I think if feels that the Democrats have any shot at the Senate in 2018 he will bolt. If we don't win it back, he surely will fold his cards before 2020 thus ensuring a Republican replacement which will be a Gorsuch corporate clone.

Ginsberg takes good care of herself, but the actuarial tables are not in her favor for making it to Jan, 2021. We could be facing the swing vote being Alito with Roberts grouped with the four most liberal justices.

47. I doubt the democrats could hold out more than a year.

the election year. So I think he could retire in 2019 and they'd still have to allow Trump to nominate someone.

It is something he may be considering though so that's a good point. Even though I don't think he'd want social conservatives to take over the court he's republican so I think he does want to be replaced by a republican president.

16. I hope center-right purists will be able to start seeing beyond resentment and start

working with the rest of the party to save America. Please try to keep up; the primaries ended 1.5 years ago. It's time for you to acknowledge that the people on DU are Dems; we vote for Dem candidates. You may disagree with some peoples' primary votes, but it's way past time to get over it. Now is now, and we have a crisis to solve.

76. I am a very progressive person.

I have voted Dem in every election for both very progressive candidates and candidates I wished were more progressive but were better than the Republican.

I currently see organizations like Our Revolution declining to endorse Ralph Northam or Phill Murphy and supporting people like Dennis Kucinich even though he sounds like a Republican talking about the "deep state"

The warning signs are still there and ignoring them won't make them go away.

86. Two types of capital-P Progressives, neither purists.

The first is ordinary people drawn hopefully by the activist rhetoric. They often peel off to support something timely, like Hillary when she won the primary, but if not they'll eventually "get it" when they realize issues and Republicans always take a back seat to displacing Democrats. Seems to me there's a lot less tolerance for badmouthing Democrats here now. Some hard lessons were learned in 2016.

The others are those drawn by personality, the emoprogs, whose basic orientation is to be dissatisfied with whatever mainstream voters do because it's never the right thing, and I think you know those aren't ever going to change. For them, this so-called "purity" is whatever standard is needed to justify opposing others with the same goals, but fortunately they're a small minority. Notably, Thomas Jefferson strongly recommended avoiding zealots because there was no reaching consensus through discussion with them, Adams felt famously plagued by them, and the American revolution was mostly conducted without their input.

112. There is no such thing as a center right purist...the pure movement is on the left.

I hope some on the left will not consider electability and voting for candidates they don't love or even like if they are Democrats to further our policy. I would vote for a dead dog before a worthless Republican.

134. Oh there most certainly is

140. No there isn't...and the pure movement has cost us big policy going back to 2000 ...94

really...It is a damn shame that we are fighting for our lives and some on the left left...don't know what you call them as I am left and would vote for anyone with a 'D' next to their name are still at it...I guess purist is more apropos than progressive in this instance...but centrist no.

138. you're right....

141. I am progressive. I would love to run 'pure' in all states. But I challenge you to examine all

50 states and tell me how we get a majority in the Senate without moderates...remember for most things we need 60 votes. It won't happen unless we accept some centrists as in the old days when we spent decades in the majority or we become the permanent minority party and never given the GOP behavior in 16, get another supreme court judge. The problem is that those who demand 'pure' are not reasonable nor realistic as to what it takes to win. This year, you vote for a warm body and get the numbers...running inappropriate candidates for a state is a foolish waste of money and time and can only lead to significant losses...then we get to watch all progressive policy hard fought since Roosevelt disappear. Of course the height of stupidity is primarying sitting Democrats especially in red states when the money and time could be spend going after Republican seats.

38. While your assessment may be correct, the fact is that none of them are particularly young, and

anything can happen. We are barely hanging by a thread.

Gorsuch is where he is today because of 2016.

Every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the republican, and that more than any thing means that unless we can take back the Senate in 2018, which will be very challenging, we are very vulnerable for at least the next two and a half years

31. That's right Eiot, and why I will NEVER forgive those self-identified progressives who refused to

33. Hell, I will go one step further, I want an apology from the ones who DID vote for her

but whined incessantly to anyone who would listen and said shit like "I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary"

I met so many like that in real life and on line. I recall some in a store one day, and what really worries me are the millennials I met who did not bother to hold their noses, they were told by SOMEONE that the system is corrupt, the D party was corrupt and they voted 3rd party.

103. I'd bet everything I have that you are wrong.

Why the rush to assume everyone is unprincipled and evil? Besides, what exactly is it that you think Kennedy is lacking for the last decade of his life? It's not like he's going to the poor house when he retires.

122. LOL. That's funny. nt

That a very smart Republican would resign a few months BEFORE the mid-terms, where Dems are expected to win bigly and cut the Repub majority, instead of a few months after, knowing full well that that would mean a far-right Republican nominee instilled for life, to the effect that it would forever change the trajectory of policy and the Constitution of the U.S. That that smart man would not know that, and would not intend that. Yeah, that's funny.

123. How so?

It seems I may be unique here at DU (although it would not shock me to find the other lawyers here good similar, if private, views) in truly holding great respect for all the current members of the Supreme Court. I think none of them have bad intentions but simply disagree in how they think their good intents might best achieved. I even think that of perhaps the most vilified recent past justice, Scalia.

50. Perhaps... the "rumor" is being floated out there to bolster rethugs' resolve.

Right now the polls in the PA special election are favoring the Dem. With new other polls seemingly indicating that the Dems could not only pick up a significant number of seats in the Congress, including the Senate, they could actually regain the majority. I don't know whether that's possible, but the rethugs know they need to play every card in their stacked deck to pull out a win. If the rethugs feel there is hope of gaining another SCOTUS pick, this become an extremely valuable carrot to dangle before them and may urge them to go to the polls in greater numbers than they might have otherwise.

Barring that, the only hope this great, but dangerously in jeopardy, republic is all but doomed unless there is an act of God or Karma to prevent it, but I just can't see how that's possible, because whether tRump is holding the reins of power or Pence is, the rethugs will appoint the next SC justice.

66. Why not?

73. As a "for instance,"

take Roe v. Wade. It has been the law of the land for 45 years. It has survived the following R Presidents: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and now Trump. Reagan won in 1984 by an overwhelming landslide. There were wave elections in 1994, 2010, and 2014. What do you imagine would have happened in those elections if there had been anti-Roe SC candidates on the ballot?

Appointments make the Court a lot less political than it would be if justices were elected, and lifetime appointments mean there is some continuity. Elected justices who serve limited terms would mean that there would be wild swings, which this country couldn't survive.

Oh, and since that is also in the Constitution, changing it would mean a Constitutional Amendment, which would be as bound to fail as repealing the 2nd Amendment.

74. That won't work.

The left forced Democrats to use the filibuster on Gorsuch, so Republicans just got rid of the filibuster. Now you only need 51 votes to force a vote and to confirm a supreme court nominee. Republicans have exactly 51 senators. There's no way to stop it if it happens in 2018.

After 2019 it's possible but only if Democrats take back control of the senate.

82. Don't rain on my parade. n/t

87. There is some hope....

Two republican senators (Collins and Murkowski) are pro choice and may oppose a Trump conservative nominee. That takes their total down to 49. Democrats would have to hold all their senators and get those two republicans plus both independnets (Sanders and King) to force Trump to nominate someone moderate. It'd be really tough but may be possible.

It'd be much easier though if democrats would just have saved the filibuster and not blew it on Gorsuch then Trump would need 60 votes.

149. filibuster would be gone either way

I don't think there was any chance of saving the filibuster. Even if the Democrats had waited to use it for the nominee following Gorsuch, Republicans would've gotten rid of it at that future point in time. I think that's the case even if they or Trump were in a weaker position politically. They've already shown from the Garland situation that there's nothing they won't do, and since they weren't punished for it by the electorate, they're not going to let up anytime soon.

153. Yes, it would have worked

Democrats could have made a deal with Collins, Murkowski, McCain.... to let Gorsuch be confirmed then they would promise not to nuke the filibuster for the nomination after him. They wanted to do it, but Democrats (Coons and some others) couldn't agree because there was too much pressure from the left to filibuster Gorsuch. The left is emotional and dumb and don't know how to think strategically.

55. NO!!!!!

OMG another russian drumpf loyalist on SCOTUS, we are truly fucked if so. He's even doing it then to ensure drumpf gets the pick and can install another person who swears loyalty to him above the constitution. Even if we win back the House and Senate, would an activist russian repug SCOTUS protect him above the constitution - YES.

I hope Mueller is able to indict drumpf, and has proof on tape, of him conspiring against America with a hostile foreign country, before this happens. Maybe then enough reupgs won't go along with him stacking the court with other traitors? Maybe? Either that, or we are well and truly fucked and the end of our constitutional democracy will be at hand.

151. never mind

62. JESUS....

SO have we heard this from Justice Kennedy? We hear it from the GOP. Jesus Christ, relax until it happens. They are trying to stoke their base because they know the right wing is FUCKED, and they also know when the Senate flips to Democrat, we control who comes and goes. McConnell is shitting in his diapers knowing that if dems take the Senate, they can easily sit on ANY nomination they please.... Lets hear it from Kennedy first.

68. We are FUCKED if Kennedy retires while Trump is president.

137. I do not think he is going to retire this year. Who knows about next.

The two I really worry about are Sonia Sotomayor and RBG. Sotomayor's diabetes is really getting bad, she has had the paramedics come for her in January, and RGB, whilst very vigorous for her age, is a multiple cancer survivor.

Think all 3 can hold on until 2020. After that, almost zero chance all three do. The 2020 POTUS election is going to have more riding on it than any in my short lifetime.

128. lets preparet to hear this song from trumps xtian soliders..

"well yes, trump was a sleaze, but thanks to him we have saved the lives of the unborn, and done away with many things that made people focus on the rights, rather than their obligations to god (especially those brown and blacks who would be in hell if we did not convert them anyway)."